Articles Posted inCase Summaries

Since the penalties can be so severe, drivers convicted of causing death or injuries in crashes involving a DUI in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions usually seek out every avenue of appeal. Many of their arguments center around the way that police and other personnel collect, store and handle the blood samples used to determine blood alcohol content.

In mid-October, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by John Goodman of his conviction on DUI manslaughter. According to the Florida Sun Sentinel, Goodman is arguing (through his lawyers) that the state’s rules for collecting and analyzing blood are inadequate and that they violate the rights of drivers charged with DUI.

The Goodman case is attracting a great deal of attention in Florida because the defendant is a millionaire known for founding the Wellington polo club. He’s currently serving a 16-year sentence in the death of Scott Patrick Wilson, age 23. Goodman’s Bentley slammed into Wilson’s Hyundai, sending the vehicle into a canal. Wilson drowned in his vehicle.Continue reading

Under the terms of Section 23550 of the California Vehicle Code, a driver convicted of DUI in Los Angeles three or more times within 10 years faces felony (rather than misdemeanor) DUI charges, which can result in anywhere from 16 months to four years in prison. Many states have similar laws. But what happens when those laws change?

Should the count of DUI convictions start when the law goes into effect, or does the lookback period extend all the way back 10 years prior to its implementation?

That question is playing out in Kentucky courtrooms today, according to an article on Louisville’s WDB.com website. Until the Kentucky State Legislature passed Senate Bill 56 earlier this year, the state’s lookback period for DUI charges had been five years. The new law extends that period to 10 ten years. But is it retroactive? Judges in different Kentucky counties have different interpretations, since the law did not specifically address that issue.

One serious consequence for those convicted of DUI in Los Angeles is the loss of their licenses. If a breathalyzer, blood test or urine test show that a person is operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or greater, the California Department of Motor Vehicles will automatically suspend that person’s license for four months (for a first offense) or one year (if it is a second or subsequent offense within a 10-year period). Drivers are entitled to request an administrative hearing to appeal that decision, but they must do so within 10 days of the time they receive the suspension order.

Oklahoma has a similar law and also allows those arrested on DUI charges to appeal their license suspension. But the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS) has been falling behind on license revocation hearings; motorists who want to appeal their loss of a license must wait anywhere from 13 to 19 months to get a hearing date.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must have warrants to draw blood from DUI suspects, defendants accused of DUI in Los Angeles and their lawyers have been working to get any incriminating blood evidence suppressed in their trials. (Those convicted of DUI have been trying to get their convictions overturned.) Such efforts have been successful in many state and local courts throughout the country.

California prosecutors and defense attorneys are watching one case in San Mateo County that involves vehicular manslaughter. On October 5, 2013, 27-year-old Zachary Katz drove the wrong way on U.S. Highway 101 and slammed into another car. The crash ejected both occupants of the other vehicle, killing one and seriously injuring another, according to Palo Alto Online.

When police officers did a preliminary blood screening on Katz, his blood alcohol content measured 0.15. Two hours later, a hospital test showed it to be 0.13. Both readings are well over the legal limit of 0.08.

What evidence should a judge permit police to present during a DUI trial? If a driver suspected of DUI in Los Angeles refuses to take a field sobriety test, for example, should the court allow police officers to use that as evidence against him/her?

The Washington State Supreme Court thinks so. In a recent 5-4 vote, the court ruled that Mark Tracy Macham did not have a constitutional right to refuse a field sobriety test on the grounds that it was an unreasonable search.
According to King 5 News, police had pulled Mecham over back in 2011 because there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. After trying to talk to Mecham, the officer concluded that he was impaired and asked him to take a field sobriety test. Mecham refused. During his booking at the police station on DUI charges, Mecham also refused repeated requests to take a breathalyzer test.

A recent Supreme Court decision requires police officers to get a warrant if a suspected DUI driver refuses to take a blood test voluntarily. This ruling could eventually impact procedures in future cases of DUI in Los Angeles.

In a split decision, five of the eight justices said that police may not arrest a driver for refusing a blood test if they do not have a warrant. The Court ruled that warrantless blood tests violate drivers’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. The same justices also said that the same protection did not extend to drivers when it came to breathalyzer tests, because the breath tests are less intrusive than blood tests.

In dissenting opinions, two justices said that warrants should be required for both blood and breathalyzer tests; one said that they should be required for neither.

The Supreme Court was ruling on three cases—two from North Dakota and one from Minnesota—that had raised the issue of warrantless blood tests for drivers accused of DUI. Those two states, plus 11 others (Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia) have laws making it a crime for a driver to refuse a request for a blood alcohol test when an officer suspects that a motorist is driving under the influence.

Under California’s vehicle codes, drivers suspected of a DUI in Los Angeles must submit to breathalyzer or blood tests or face a license suspension of one year for the first offense (two years for the second offense and three years for the third) and must pay a fine of $125.

Texas has a similar implied consent law, and the state’s appeals court has just upheld its constitutionality.

Officer Luis Villarreal of the McAllen, Texas, Police Department pulled John Andrew Rankin over on July 19, 2014, after the driver breezed through a blinking red light without stopping. The officer reported that Rankin smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slurred his speech. When Rankin failed field sobriety tests, Villarreal arrested him for driving under the influence. At the police station, Rankin refused to take a breathalyzer test.

When police officers charge drivers with Los Angeles DUI, they must take great care when booking people to avoid violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Even simple, seemingly trivial mistakes in protocol can mean that an otherwise justified arrest won’t stand up in court.

To that end, the Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that if police officers say that a driver is “required” to take a blood alcohol test rather than “requested” to do so, the DUI charge won’t stand. According to Tucson TV station KVOA, the court said that requiring a search would violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search.

Synthetic drugs are causing a real dilemma for states striving to enforce laws against driving under the influence. Depending on the type of drug a driver uses to get high, prosecutors can find it next to impossible to obtain a DUI conviction. Is that fair? How can states standardize how they handle and punish drug DUI cases? What safeguards should be in place to protect defendants?

An Associate Press article recently analyzed the case of 18-year-old Kristian Roggio, who suffered fatal injuries when another driver crossed a road in Brooklyn and collided with her car. Police maintain that the offending driver got high after inhaling aerosol dust cleaner, and they charged him with vehicular manslaughter. However, the New York Supreme Court threw out those charges, because that particular substance didn’t appear on the state’s list of banned substances. The Court decided that case nine years ago, but problems regarding how to identify and prosecute drug DUIs in New York and beyond persist to this day.

When courts find someone guilty of a DUI in Los Angles, the penalties that person faces will depend on whether or not he or she has prior DUI convictions. (It doesn’t matter if some of the DUI convictions occurred in another state; California treats those offenses as if they occurred in state.)

Most states also track DUIs that take place in different jurisdictions within their boundaries. But Oklahoma has provided an out for drivers convicted of DUI in most municipalities. Only two municipal courts in that state are courts of record, which report DUI convictions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network. That leaves 350 municipal courts that don’t report to the state. Drivers can rack up an unlimited number of DUIs, and as long as they took place in different municipalities, each would count as a first offense.